Any of you guys keeping up with this?

Me personally I think it is an attack on religious freedom. Do any of you guys think Women’s rights trump the first amendment?

With all the other places one can get contraception in this country (Planned Parenthood, Walgreens, Wal Mart, Local Pharmacy, etc) I don't see why there is a need to force any religion to go against one of its core beliefs.

 

I'm not a religious guy. Not at all.

My wife and I had decided long ago that we aren't going to have children. I would never expect a church to provide us with contraceptives.

I don't know why the government would take this stand. I don't know why there aren't a bunch of people screaming about the seperation of church and state.

This should worry all people in this country. They could play this game with myriad issues. On day, they will take rights from everyone.

This is an attack on religious freedom. If there weren't so many people drinking the Obama cool aid, we'd put a stop to all of this in November.

 

I haven't heard of this. Link?

 

Little ****** ACME Condom Company made a huge contribution to Obama's campaign fund but it only made a little bump in his pants......

 

It is a question on religious org insurance plans to cover their employees’ birth control costs, just like any other insurance plans do today.
It is really a question on prescription coverage by insurance plans ( having prescription coverage but listing out something specifically not covered ).

Might want to ask yourself, why is this an issue ?

If the devout are not going to take advantage of this due to religious belief, how did it make it to the POTUS of all people ?

Somewhere someone raised a stink about it not being covered.

If it is OK for the religious insurance plan to not cover this, is it OK for a company to not cover a prescription for high blood pressure medication at a Hostess ?

How about any company to omit Aids medication on prescription plans. It is just going to keep a sick employee around the office longer, why not just let him get on with it, so they can put him on LTD and get a new employee that can start a new 20 year tenure.

Also, ask yourself, does the religious org insurance plan cover Viagra ?

 

The only catch in this is that the POSTUS's bunch consider abortion as birth controll. There is alot of difference in slapping on a rubber and sucking a viable life out of the womb. Seems to me that on those grounds the new regs are stepping on a religious organization's liberties pretty hard.

Probably opened up a real can-o-worms here.........oh well here we go!

 

It's unconstitutional, plain and simple.

The gov't cannot use it's power to force it's religious (secular humanist) beliefs. And that is exactly what forcing contraception on people is.

 

Just another step on this administration's path to Socialism. Remember, the government knows what's best for us and is doing all of this for our own protection.
Words fail me.

 

This is where the grape vines takes a bit of liberties with what is actually going on.

It is prescription coverage not procedures in question.

Ask yourself, do you want your company to be able to build a list of prescriptions that are specifically omitted ?

 

So the gist I've got is he is forcing religious based insurance companies to cover contraceptives just like many of the corporate companies.

Yeah, he shouldn't have done that but who's surprised? He seems to be pretty good at screwing stuff up and pissing people off.

On the flip side, if the religious based insurance companies don't want to cover contraceptives then doom on them. We all know the "Just wait until your married" drum they've been beating for a few hundred years hasn't been working very well, especially in recent times.

Frank, by forcing insurance companies and other religious organizations to cover contraceptives it does not force non-religious beliefs onto anyone. It doesn't say "Ok, now that these are covered you must dismiss God and ******* like rabbits since you won't get pregnant." Just because it is covered doesn't mean it is required. Anyone with a strong religious background will ignore it and keep doing what they are doing. But don't get me wrong here, it doesn't not say it either. I'm sure that the bureaucrats have left some ambiguity in there to be taken advantage of at a later date. It is tightening the ratchet one small click to nullify the power of religious organizations.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireSto...1#.TzUerMiq-eY


IMO, yeah it is a good thought to help women but whenever political figures get involved they really screw it up.

 

Are they forcing people to take a prescription or forcing a company not to limit what prescriptions are covered ?

 

I'm not religious in any way. With that said I was raised in a religious house and went to a religious middle school. The Catholic church as stated sex is to be used for procreation. Even a man spilling his seed on the ground (toilet, cup, womans stomach) is a sin. It is no wonder the church feels life begins at conception. One of the big rules in Christianity is "you shall not kill." Although there has been studies done that say the original verbiage was, "you shall not murder." Either way, if the church says life begins at conception it is a violation of one of their big 10 rules to have an abortion. The church is not in a position to judge, only forgive. The church is like the SCOTUS they interpret the bible and pass the interpretation on to the parishioners. Passing a law requiring the church to pay for something that is completely against one of their big 10 is in direct violation of separation of church and state. A priest cannot be compelled to testify in court to something he heard in confession. Requiring a church to pay to break one of their big 10, is no less important.

 

Forcing insurers to offer contraception is unconstitutional.

Taking control of private matters is par for the course with this president.

 

So if forcing this prescription to be covered is unconstitutional, then forcing a company to cover a prescription for blood thinners is also unconstitutional.


This I will not disagree with, very true.

What this topic is about is companies being able to pick and choose what they want an insurance plan to cover.
If a company can remove every expensive prescription from insurance coverage, what stops them from removing coverage for MRIs ?

This very well could become the presidence companies need to craft insurance plans that are cost controlled, and qualify for the requirements under the health care law.
Thing is, the employee is still paying the same amount, and become financially on the hook for anything expensive.

 

Let's keep in mind that many 'insurers' are religious organizations.

See what Obama is doing now? Not that you guys didn't understand, but the man is now changing his stance after the current backlash.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...aception-rule/